Delhi

StateCommission

RP/216/2016

INDIAN RAILWAY WELFARE ORG. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DAVINDER KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

01 Dec 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

Date of Decision: 01.12.2016

 

 

Revision Petition No.216/2016

(Arising out of the order dated 11.08.2014 passed in Complaint Case No.236/2012 by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, New Delhi)

 

In the matter of:

 

Indian Railway Welfare Organization,

Railway Complex,

Behind Shankar Market,

New Delhi-110001.

....Petitioner

 

Versus

 

Shri Davidner Kumar,

S/o Late Shri Babu Lal,

R/o A-72, Hans Apartments,

East Arjun Nagar,

Delhi

...Respondent

 

CORAM

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President.

Ms. Salma Noor, Member.

 

 

 

1.  Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

 

2.  To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

 

1. In this revision petition prayer is made for setting aside order dated 11.08.2014 passed by the District Forum in CC No.236/2012 by which the petitioner/OP has been proceeded ex-parte.
2. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner/OP that on the aforesaid date the A.R. of the petitioner/OP was in personal difficult and had telephonically informed the respondent/complainant who is an advocate to seek adjournment on his behalf. It is stated that it appears the respondent/complainant did not inform the Ld. District Forum as a result of which the petitioner/OP was proceeded ex-parte on the aforesaid date. It is stated that despite being informed about the personal difficulty of petitioner/OP in putting appearance, the Ld. District Forum on aforesaid date proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner/OP and adjourned the case to 09.12.2014. It is stated that on 09.12.2014 the respondent/complainant was not present and petitioner/OP was present, where he even orally argued the matter and the matter was adjourned to 20.02.2015. On the said date the respondent/complainant was present and arguments were heard at length and thereafter the matter was reserved for judgment.  It is stated that the petitioner/OP was under the impression that he had been heard in the matter and nothing is required to be done. However, the Ld. President of the District Forum retired before passing the final judgment and a new President had taken over and the petitioner/OP was informed that he had already been proceeded ex-parte and he should get the same set aside. It is stated that thereupon, the present petition has been moved.
3. Respondent is present in person. After some arguments, it is stated that to cut short further delay in the matter, the respondent/complainant has no objection if the impugned order is set aside subject to costs.
4. In view of the statement of respondent/complainant as well as for effective disposal of the case on merit, we accept this petition, set aside the order dated 11.08.2014  by the petitioner/OP was proceeded ex-parte subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent/complainant.
5. Ld. counsel for petitioner/OP states that the petitioner/OP had already filed its evidence by way of affidavit alongwith written submissions, however the same were not taken on record, as it was proceeded ex-parte. It is stated that now the matter is listed before District Forum on 05.12.2016.
6. The parties are directed to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 05.12.2016, when the petitioner/OP shall pay the cost to the respondent/complainant and thereafter the District Forum shall take on record the evidence of the petitioner/OP as well as written submission and shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.
7. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
8. Copy of this order be given to the parties and be also sent to the Ld. District Forum(New Delhi) for information and keeping it on record for compliance

          File be consigned to Record Room.